Georgia court tells gay dad he cannnot “expose” kids to homosexuals

Post your comment

Reader comments

Strange that no paramour clauses exist for straights; it might be harmful for a child if mummy or daddy has different people coming over to spend the night. And what’s next: Eric Mongerson will be required to behave as straight as he can while the kids are around? As long as nobody tell them differently, kids won’t wonder about daddy’s friends.

I don’t mean to be offensive but did the open nuclear tests conducted in the U.S.A. in the ’50 and ’60 have an irreversible effect on certain range of the population? I can not understand how resilient is certain people in their homophobic thought.

Ah, how could I have not guessed that Ivanis a homophobic troll? Makes sense now.

The judge is entirely wrong in his decision and I fail to understand why cases like this always claim to consider the best needs of the child. This man’s children want to see their Dad and the fact that their father is gay should have no bearing on that. If anything, surely the children having a clearer understanding as to why the marriage with their mother didn’t work out will make it easier for them to accept it?

It really makes no sense at all – I mean, will the mother not be allowed to have gay friends in the house if the children are present? Surely they would have the same “damaging effect” on the children, whatever that is. . .

What’s scary is that the judge feels no shame in making such a bigoted, hatefilled ruling. I bet plenty of judges (in all countries) hold racist views, but very few of them would dare to express them by ruling that a divorced parent couldn’t expose their children to their black partner, would they?
Yes, blame the judge, but also blame the general public (again, not just in the US) who tacitly think that homophobia’s OK. Every time I think we’ve progressed an aquaintance who doesn’t know my sexuality comes out with a gob-smackingly homophobic remark and thinks that’s fine and that most people would sneer along with them.
And, Lexxvs – remember the joke about the Pilgrim Fathers? They weren’t fleeing persecution, they were looking for someone to persecute…

Ivan, you make a lot of assumptions about me based on a few comments – how do you know where I live, whether or not I am married or whether I’m a parent? I can tell you are wrong on several counts – I have a partner of 8 years and we have two adopted children. But you wouldn’t bother nor care to find that out, would you?

You said “Judge did it right: children shall not be exposedd to homosexual acts by their parent”

To me, that is homophobic (and being bisexual does not mean you cannot be homophobic – just look at Ted Haggard). You are justifying the judge’s decision based on your attitude that homosexuality is some how harmful to children. Now, I would agree with the idea that parents should not have casual partners stay over while they have their children in the home, but that is a personal ideal that I don’t believe judges should be enforcing on parents. Nor do I believe it should only apply to homosexual relationships – if the father cannot have his boyfriend stay over, then why should the mother?

Don’t accuse me of not knowing the facts when you know about as much as I do.

Years ago, I was on a flight to Hartsfield Airport in Atlanta. The flight attendant said the following, in preparation for landing: “Ladies and gentlemen, please put your seats in an upright position, your trays in an upright and locked position and set your watches back 100 years — we’ll be on the ground in Atlanta shortly.”

Andrew, its enough for me to read a few of your commentaries to figure out correctly what kind person you are, and that you are not a native of Georgia, and that you are no married (as the civil code of State of Georgia defined marriage act), that you are not lives with even one wife in Georgia, that you never had own children from your wife in Georgia. Your partnership with another homosexual man is not a marriage in legal sense in Georgia, and as it recognized in absolutely all countries of the world. The children, whom you adapted is not yours, but GOVERNMENTALLY PLACED in your unbiological and simple social care by some incompetent individuals in human psychology. You and your homosexual partner are not the parents (as it defined in all legal jurisdictions fo the world) to these children but only some sort of social supervisors. My consideration about you all turns to be absolutely correct.

Regarding the stamp “homophobic”. For your information, the world “homophobia” are highly controvesial. Many gay attaching to this word great number of connotation (ML conotatio), and different semantics, consequently. And whatever you feel about my thinking, make no difference to me, except what you really think.

Farthermore, I agreed with the judge’s decision on the basis of the case, and not on the attitude toward homosexuality per se. Judges, in most custody cases, making their decisions not on the basis their attutudes toward heterosexuality or homosexuality, but on the information regarding specific behaviour patterns of one parent or another, or both. That the point from they making the decisions. In this particular case judge, in my opinion, did it right, because the particular parent was known for his unconforming sexual behavior. I might be wrong, as well as the judge, but for seeing that I, as well as he, shall to have the fact to otherwise. None so far is emerged from this case. That’s why I agreed with that particular judge.